Thank you for coming, everyone. I'm Kallum Titchmarsh, Medical Device Analyst here at Morgan Stanley. Really pleased today to be joined by the iRhythm team. We've got Quentin Blackford, CEO, and we've got Dan Wilson here from IR. Just before we get started, a couple of quick disclosures for you. Please see Morgan Stanley Research Disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures, or please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales rep. Quentin, as we were just chatting, a couple of years now as the CEO, curious to hear what's occupying the majority of your time at the moment and how that's changed.
Sure. It's hard to believe it's been two years already, to be honest with you, which will be here October 1st. But, you know, in terms of where I'm spending the majority of my time now versus where it's been, I guess maybe we'll start with where it, where it had been, because it has evolved and morphed a little bit. But, you know, early on, it was very much about getting the right people in the right seats and the right structure in place to really pursue sort of strategically what we wanted to get after as a company.
I think we spent a lot of time early on really defining those sort of things, and we laid those out at our Analyst Day and made it very clear how we were going to go after sort of the strategic pillars that we had identified. For me, then getting the right people around the table to make sure that we could pursue that aggressively was my primary focus, and we've done that. T here was a pretty significant amount of leadership transition that took place in the first 12 months. That's behind us now. We've got the team in place, and we're off and rolling. Here recently, it's been much more about operational execution and really trying to bring operational excellence into the organization.
We've had a lot of things on the table here over the last several months. We talked about the Zio Monitor launch. We just had our large launch meeting yesterday in Atlanta with our entire commercial team. Monitor is out, and it's starting to roll into the field as we speak, and I couldn't be more pleased about that. What we've seen in the early stages with the market evaluation is just absolutely incredible. It's on over 16,000 patients already. NPS scores are north of 90, which is remarkable. Complaint rates are down more than 50% from the XT product. Like, I think this is a transformational product for us that gets us excited, but it's out there. W e've got that launched.
I was in the Philippines a week ago, with the official grand opening of our Philippines Global Business Services Center. F rom an operational perspective, we're getting things in place there. I would just say, you know, here more recently, it's been about the operational execution of what we say we're going to do. T hat's where my time's been spent. But now that we've got these things going, then it'll probably morph back into a bit of the strategic things, but it's moved around a little bit.
Perfect. You know, having some time now to reflect on that Q2 result, you know, maybe characterize the key drivers there and how you can expect this to change through the second half.
Yeah. Look, the first half of the year for us was really strong. I think the momentum in the business, to be honest with you, is as strong as what we've seen in quite some time. You know, if we were to go back into even last year, I think if you look at market share data. We pay a lot of attention to external market share trends and data just to make sure we understand how we're performing. You would have argued we lost a point or two of share throughout the course of 2022. I feel very confident in the first half of this year, we've regained those. We're actually taking share in a market where we already have a vast majority of it, probably 70% of that market.
I feel very good about the progress and the momentum in the underlying business in both XT and AT. I think there would've been an easy argument for why AT could have slowed down in the face of a Warning Letter. We're navigating that quite well with the FDA. I feel very good about where that stands. I think we've done a lot of work to really build a relationship there that is going to benefit us far into the future, and we can talk more about that later on. But the overall momentum in the business is really good. R eally, what drove the performance or outperformance in the first half was volume growth, strong volume growth. Q3 continues to come together nicely for us. Volume continues to be strong. Registrations continue to be strong.
July was a bit of an interesting month for us. Obviously, a hotter month. August was a hotter month. We always get impacted with the hotter seasonality, falloff rates, return device rates. Those are things that we are mindful of when we set expectations. But Q3 continues to be a good, strong quarter for us, and volumes continue to be strong. I do think the one thing that's interesting with respect to Q3, though, that I do want to hit on a little bit is, with this Monitor launch, it's a little bit of a unique situation where we will not present a record level of new account openings in the third quarter, just to be completely transparent. First half was a record level.
Q3, what we're seeing is so many of these new accounts are excited to get onto Monitor, and now that Monitor is launched, they're waiting or deferring their onboarding to where the pipeline has never been stronger than what we see right now, but the actual onboarding is getting deferred until after that launch. W e're now in the process of bringing those accounts on board as we speak, but the momentum in the business has been really, really strong. B ut that's a bit of a unique anomaly, I think, in Q3. That should be a very nice tailwind in the fourth quarter and in 2024 for us.
Great. Y ou mentioned it briefly, but the tone during the Q2 call, very constructive on the Warning Letter. Maybe talk us through the discussions here with the FDA, you know, and clarify to us which tweaks are being made to the AT at present.
Yeah, I mentioned, you guys all had the opportunity to see the Warning Letter, and the language in that Warning Letter was pretty direct, right? I think it created some concern, and rightfully so, and I could certainly understand how it got perceived, from the external investor community as you were to read through that letter. I will tell you, the tone with the FDA has changed in a 180-degree sort of way. W e were very proactive with the agency when we received the Warning Letter.
The receipt of the Warning Letter was a surprise to us because we had come through the inspection, we had received the Form 483, we had the Form 483 closing meeting, we talked through all the issues and observations, and frankly, what showed up in the Warning Letter was never really even discussed with us in the Form 483 observation. T hat was something that was a bit out of left field and surprised us. But the FDA was very willing to engage with us and sit down and talk through sort of our approach historically of why we took the path that we did with Letter to File.
They shared their, you know, concerns around it, and it's been a very collaborative effort from that point forward, to the point where we know, you know, with a very high degree of certainty, they've aligned with the fact that with some labeling updates, they continue to see the product as an MCT device. That was a big hurdle for us, 'cause that was something that we didn't understand to be an issue coming out of the inspection, but clearly it was in the Warning Letter. T o put that to bed was a big deal for us. Now, really, the open item is how do we navigate through these Letter to File concerns that they've articulated? W ith respect to where we're at right now, they are asking questions with a handful of those Letter to File items.
We continue to feed them that feedback. They haven't made a determination on whether they agree with Letter to File being the appropriate pathway, or if they really think a catch-up 510(k) should be submitted. To be honest with you, we'll go either direction. We're not gonna dig our heels in on this one with the FDA. We don't need to. They've been very clear that in a catch-up 510(k), that pathway is product continues to be in the market while you submit the catch-up 510(k), and we work through it, and we address their concerns, right? W e go ahead and formally get it into the 510(k). If that's where they landed, I'd have no issue with that. W e're working with them.
We're working directly with CDRH as we speak, continue to answer a few questions around letter to file, but I would imagine over the next, you know, handful of weeks here, certainly by the time we get to our Q3 call, we're gonna have clarity on, whether we're gonna go ahead and go down a catch-up 510, or whether they're gonna accept our letter to file. But either way, I don't think it really impacts the business, to be honest with you. The impact it has is if we're gonna do a catch-up 510, it does impact the timeliness of when we can submit the MCT 2.0, 510 submission. T hat's the one impact of going down a catch-up 510. But with respect to the AT product in the market today, couldn't be more happy with it.
Couldn't be more surprised, I think, with the success that it's having, the momentum that it has. I think for anything, more than anything, it probably validates to me that this whole idea of having roughly 7% of this MCT market with our AT product, you get a product in there that really can hold its own relative to the competitive products, there's no reason we shouldn't have something much more comparable to the share we have in XT. I like the way that sets up in terms of a future revenue growth driver for the company. But we gotta fix it here now with the FDA, and then get on to MCT.
Great. You know, what have the company's key takes been from the warning letter? Has anything changed, you know, internally to limit the risks of further issues down the line?
Yeah, it's a great question, and I think, to be honest with you, things were changing before the warning letter even showed up. We began in 2021 to really invest into the whole quality regulatory organization of the company. We brought in new leadership. Mazi's been terrific for us. He's an outstanding quality regulatory leader. But he was already down the pathway of really cleaning up a lot of what was there as he stepped into it, and really thinking about where we had to get to over time, right? I would say the warning letter didn't necessarily prompt us to look differently.
It was just reaffirming the fact that we needed to continue on with what we were already doing to address some of the shortcomings that we had seen in terms of identifying, you know, what does best in class look like? What does world class look like here? We know what it looks like. We're building towards it. The FDA sort of confirmed to us that we need to go even faster, right? But, you know, I think the one thing, probably more than anything else, is we never had a really strong relationship with the FDA, right? F rom my history, I've always worked in organizations where we try to build a very collaborative relationship with the FDA, where we're in constant dialogue.
We're sharing with them very clearly, sort of what's on the roadmap, how we think about innovating the product, what's next to come, how we think about setting up the testing protocols, what we want to see in the label, what we need to do from a regulatory perspective. We've begun to build that relationship now, whereas I would've said, you know, prior to 2021, it just didn't exist, to be honest with you. I think that's a positive that's coming out of it.
Okay, great. Now just zooming out to the broader ACM market, you know, I'm keen to hear what you're viewing, how you're viewing the market at the moment in the U.S., and specifically what you're seeing on the competitive side and how you keep on top of these pressures?
Yeah. I'll speak to it, and if you want to jump in and say anything, you should. You know, I hit a little bit on it earlier. I think the ACM market is at a point right now where we're on the verge of patch-based technologies truly becoming the standard of care in ambulatory cardiac monitoring. I believe we're right about that 50% rate to the market, using patch-based technologies. I think as you come over that tipping point, the momentum's just gonna continue to build, and ultimately 70%, 80+% of ACM tests are gonna be using patch-based technology. I think that's a nice tailwind as we think about the market.
But I think there are a lot of other things that are happening in our market that frankly get me to start thinking about the market differently than what I even had coming into the opportunity two years ago. The whole discussion around the Pulsed Field Ablation, I think that's gonna lead to incremental opportunity and monitoring that comes out of that, so there's a lot of hype around that. That's fascinating. I think that's a 10%-15% increase in the overall market. But even more than that, Zio in the marketplace is starting to be recognized for something more than what I think we even had in mind when we designed it. It is a clinically superior product.
The CAMELOT data that's out there, backed by CMS, you know, data sets, will articulate very clearly that Zio is the superior monitoring technology relative to a Holter, relative to other patch-based technologies. It's very clear. Faster time to diagnosis, highest diagnostic yield of anything that's out there, lowest healthcare resource utilization required, lowest retest rates. It all aligns to the clinical benefits of it. But what's changing in the market right now is that Zio is starting to be seen as more of a workflow efficiency tool in these large networks. You can't go out and have a discussion with a cardiologist or an electrophysiologist today, where they're not inviting the primary care physician to the table to educate them on the value of the product, how easy it is to use.
What you're starting to see is the primary care physician is prescribing the product much earlier in the care pathway with the patient. In some cases, the primary care physician is comfortable diagnosing. If not, then that report is seen by the cardiologist or the EP in ZioSuite, and they make the diagnosis. But what it starts to have or allow to happen is for that patient to be seen much earlier versus having to wait three, four, five months to see a cardiologist or an EP. They can see their primary care physician, get the patch put on, and then they can make a determination, should this patient be seen by the specialist, or should they not? T hat is starting to have a huge, huge impact in these large networks, where they don't wanna have the patient waiting multiple months.
They don't wanna see the patient leave the network and go somewhere else. They wanna keep that patient in-network, and they wanna put them right, you know, down the right treatment pathway as soon as possible. To me, when you start to think about the implications of that, our market is not 5 million or 6 million ACM tests being prescribed every single year. It's the 15 million folks who are showing up in primary care with heart-specific palpitations in their medical records, or the 32 million that are showing up with some sort of cardiac-related matter that we just don't know what's going on. Why aren't we putting a patch on those folks, as easy as it is, to get a certain answer and know exactly what pathway to put them down?
That, that's how I think the market ultimately is gonna continue to evolve and, and morph, and that excites me more than anything else, 'cause I, I think we're just on the cusp of understanding sort of the value that this tool has in becoming a much earlier diagnostic opportunity, and then control the patient's pathway through these networks as they think about reducing costs, seeing the right patient the first time, at each different point in the, their care pathway. But that excites me because I, I think that's a very different way of thinking about the, the product. Anything that you would add? I hit a lot there, but-
Yeah, you hit a lot. Maybe the only thing I would add in terms of, you know, context, in terms of numbers today, so, you know, 6 million tests per year, as Quentin mentioned, two million of which are still short-term Holter monitors, and these are numbers as of 2022. So despite all the success we've had over the last several years, there's still a lot to be done to really transform the market and drive to a new standard of care of, you know, patch-based monitoring. T hat's what we're getting after.
Okay, great.
I know BioIntelliSense is developing products that target more than just heart rate. Do you have any longer-term plans to develop devices that can monitor, you know, other vitals?
Yeah, we absolutely do. I talk about the platform a lot because I think, you know, Zio is much more than just simply a form factor of a patch or the hardware. It's more than the software and the digital platform that we've created. It's the deep neural networks that are behind our AI. It's the large data sets that are behind it. W hat I love about getting further upstream to that primary care physician is as we bring other capabilities onto the platform, like sleep, which I think is a no-brainer, you start to have the right to win with some of these things because you can meet that physician where they need to be met in terms of all the different things they're looking at.
As easy as we've made it in the overall experience, why wouldn't you begin to look at sleep while you're looking at cardiac arrhythmias? Why wouldn't you begin to take data off the patch? W hile we might not get all the way to a diagnostic capability out of the gate with respect to sleep, I think you could very easily get to a rule in or rule out whether that patient should go on to a sleep clinic or have a home sleep test prescribed. I think those are some of the earlier wins that can come, and I think the same thing exists as you think about COPD, for example. Even the correlation with type 2 diabetes is enormous. Hypertension, heart failure, you name it, there's all sorts of things that we can see in the electrical signal.
The question is, how do you prioritize those opportunities? Which ones do you go after first? For us, that's been sleep. I think you're gonna hear more about that into the future as we continue to find ways to increase the value of what comes off of the patch and what's in our reports. But I think absolutely there will be incremental modalities and adjacent markets that will open up, and I love getting further upstream in the care pathway, because I think when you get there, you have the right to add so much more value earlier on, particularly if you can make it very easy and seamless, and I think we know how to do that.
Great. I know there's been some discussion about expanding TAM into those asymptomatic populations. What's the strategy here, and when can we start seeing this come through in numbers?
W e've got pilots that are launching as we speak. We've talked about pilots for a long while. They're finally getting off the ground here. I think that comes back to... You know, we talk about the data sets that we have. What we can see in the data, we start to connect these data sets, is you see these medical conditions and different, correlations around patients that present X, Y, and Z. Well, you can begin to target, with a high degree of certainty, where an arrhythmia is most likely to be present.
You're starting to see a lot of these payers or at-risk entities share data sets to say, "Okay, let's profile the patients within our data sets who likely has an arrhythmia, and let's go get patches on that population." That's what we're starting to see play out, and I think that's what's gonna lead to a much more proactive screening, if you will, of where these dangerous arrhythmias exist. You know, getting the USPSTF on board with proactive screening certainly will be a step in the right direction. That'd be a significant help to us, but we're not gonna wait to get all the way to that point in time.
There's a lot of these commercial payers who, frankly, understand the value of proactively finding these, dangerous arrhythmias, treating them proactively, increasing the overall healthcare of their population, and the benefits that come from that. They, they understand it well. W e don't have to educate them on that. We just have to point them down the path of: Here are the patients who most likely have these arrhythmias. Let's go find them with you. W e're having a lot of success, getting folks very interested, and now pilots beginning to launch. W e'll see where that goes, but I, I think, I think there's tremendous opportunity, particularly in these at-risk entities, they see the value of earlier diagnostics, right? A ny way to find it, they're interested in it.
Great. Now spend some time maybe speaking about the Zio monitor. You know, maybe give us some doc feedback and then just clarify for us, you know, the device itself is addressing some of the key drawbacks of the previous models. You know, why isn't the current guidance assuming any volume uptick from this?
I think more than anything, it's let's get in the field, let's let it play out, and then we'll, we'll talk about the success of it, right? We just don't want to get ahead of ourselves. We couldn't be more bullish about the product. I mentioned I was, I was in Atlanta yesterday. We had our global launch meeting with our entire commercial force. That team couldn't have been more fired up about the fact that really, for the majority of them, it's the first new product they've had to launch since they've been with iRhythm. T his is a product that I think has the opportunity to be truly transformational. But it's not even just monitor, we're introducing a new app experience that we call MyZio, that's gonna help us with the registration aspect and improving our ability to get paid on these devices.
We're improving the patient experience and the physician experience with a front-end tool that makes it much more clear in terms of what their coverage is and what their access to the product is from a payer perspective. Those are the things that excite me that I think are gonna lead to a lot of benefit with monitor. But you get into some of the feedback that we're hearing, it's now been on 16,000 patients through the market evaluation phases. The NPS score of those 16,000 patients is 91, which is incredible. It's incredible to be that high and up in the 90s. The complaint rates are 50% lower than what we have on our XT device, which I think, again, is just phenomenal.
But I think it speaks to what the team has designed and developed in this much smaller form factor, nearly 70% smaller in terms of overall volume, much lighter. It's gonna lead to a much higher patient satisfaction, a higher diagnostic yield will come off of it. We're gonna see our return rates benefit from it. All of those things are nice tailwinds that we haven't contemplated in our forward-looking expectations, but I believe will, like I said, be nice tailwinds for us, but we'll wait to see those play in, and as they do, then we'll talk about it, right? I f we need to update expectations, we will, but we're gonna wait and see it play out before we get ahead of ourselves.
What are the internal expectations between mix, between the XT and the monitor? You know, when do you think this will fully transition across?
Yeah. So our goal is to get onto monitor as quickly as we can, but at the same time, we know that we've got XT components that we wanna work through. I don't wanna take a huge inventory obsolescence charge. I think we can sell through some of this. We talked about it a little bit in the way we set expectations. Q3 will see a bit of a gross margin impact, and part of that is that transition, and we will have a bit of an E&O charge that will have to be taken, but also just the lower gross margin profile of monitor as it's getting off the ground, right?
The lower volumes being put through our production floor, we're just not fully absorbing cost on the lower volumes, but once we get that up, ultimately, the cost profile of that device will be much better than XT. So I think that, you know, out of the gate we'll go as fast as we can with the transition. We wanna keep some volume for XT just to burn through those inventory levels. But I would say by the time, you know, we get into next year, mid part of next year, we're trying to get fully transitioned to monitor. We may, depending on those inventory levels, keep the home enrollment business for XT, and keep in clinic to monitor, but we're working through the details of that as we go.
Great. Now shifting over to another new product, the Zio watch. Further down the line, can you maybe update us on the progress here and perhaps how you're thinking about pricing this product relative to existing smartwatches?
Yeah, yeah. So we continue to work on that product. That is a product that's in collaboration with Verily, as you probably know. We've learned a lot, you know, in the years that we've been working on that watch and believe that can be, you know, potentially disruptive product, you know, long term. As any disruptive product, you know, there may be some market development and, you know, reimbursement pathways that need to be worked through in the near term, but remain excited about that. Expect to get into clinical studies early part of next year, on our path to commercialization, you know, the 2025 timeframe. So remain excited about that.
I think we've learned a lot about our capabilities in terms of algorithms and how to leverage our clinical back end and the options kind of available to us from a strategy standpoint. So, excited about where that's headed.
Great. Maybe talk about the patient profile that you're targeting with the watch and how that compares to the existing portfolio.
Yeah, I would say, you know, still working through that. There was a view where, you know, you're monitoring patients... The benefit of the watch is you're monitoring patients for, you know, months, not weeks or days, right? W e know that the longer you monitor a patient, the higher the diagnostic yield can be. So, you know, for asymptomatic patients, that could be a device that can be used there. We're not, to Quentin's earlier point, we're not waiting around for the watch. We believe we can play in that market with Zio today, with XT. So we're getting after that. One opportunity is potentially ILRs, right? There's a gap in the market today from monitoring, you know, 14-30 days, all the way out to years, which is what you get with an ILR.
That is an implantable device, though, and I think it's something like 70% of patients that are prescribed an ILR elect not to move forward with that device. So we do think the watch can play into that. As we get into our clinical studies next year, we'll really start to target that patient profile.
Great. Ju st pivoting onto the international market, Japan in particular, I know the high medical needs designation was achieved back just before your Q2 results. You know, how are you viewing the revenue ramp here? W hen can we start getting excited about this market?
... I'm getting excited about it right now. I think the revenue contribution's probably more, you know, it's gonna start to come late 2024, but probably more of a 2025 opportunity for us, to be honest with you. The regulatory pathway, we're down that pathway. With the high medical needs designation, I think generally you get more attention, or faster attention from MHLW around it. We've already received our first set of questions from them, which is a terrific sign, right? They're very interested in getting this through and getting it into the marketplace. I think the right way to think about that is regulatory approval sometime out in the mid part of next year. If we can go faster, we will.
M oving directly into reimbursement discussions, which I think having that high medical needs designation certainly helps us in those discussions as well. I think ought to get us into a position where we have a nice premium, reimbursed amounts sort of tied to our product. But that probably means then that it's ready to enter the market in the very back part of 2024. So it's probably more of a 2025 contribution. Again, second largest market, though, you know, in the world, at 1.5 million ACM tests being prescribed. Really not any past-based technologies there. There are some small dabblers there, but nothing that's got the support of the Heart Rhythm Society like ours does, nothing with the high medical needs designation like we've got behind it.
I think there's an opportunity there to transform that entire market, as we get out of the gates, but it's probably 2025.
Any other markets worth calling out, outside of the U.S.?
Well, we're in Switzerland as we speak now, so we've started up in Switzerland. We still are targeting Spain and Netherlands by the end of the year, and that's looking promising, so I expect us to be there. The UK continues to be a great market for us. We're really moving into the private sector as we continue to work with NHS and trying to get public, sort of get onto the public policy, if you will, for reimbursement. But the private sector is doing phenomenal. I think that product is well understood in the local market. So with those sort of four European/U.K. markets and Japan, you know, gives us five total international markets outside the States. A lot of focus going into that, but I think great opportunity to drive some meaningful growth for us.
I think international will be a nice contributor for us in 2024.
Great. A lot of, you know, new products, new markets. Combining these together, you know, would you be comfortable with that long-term target of hitting $1 billion of annual revenues in 2027?
Yeah, we continue to feel good about that. No question. If we can get some things going, in the marketplace, like I talk about, moving to primary care, move further into that channel, 15 million, you know, folks being seen by a primary care physician, I think the market looks very different. Yeah, we feel good about the billion-dollar mark.
Keen to hear your thoughts on Novo Nordisk SELECT data published recently. You know, if adverse cardiovascular events were reduced across your target pool, how do you manage this?
Say that again, sorry.
The Novo Select data on the adverse, cardiovascular events being reduced in some patients-
Yeah, I'm not.
This is for GLP-1. Yes.
Oh, I got you. Yeah. You know, I think about it a little bit differently, I guess. I don't know that the GLP-1s are tied specifically into AFib correlation. I think there's probably not data out there that speaks directly to it causing AFib. Now, the question is, if you reduce obesity, does it reduce the incidence of AFib? I think, you know, the reality is, the majority of AFib that we ultimately detect is driven by longevity of life, right? So if we're able to increase the longevity of life for this patient pool, the likelihood of AFib becoming present in that population is higher and higher, which ultimately results in the need for more monitoring. I also believe that, you know, there is some correlation with the potential of higher degree of palpitations.
I think anytime you're seeing a higher degree of palpitations, should we be monitoring more, right? I think those are the questions that need to get asked. So I guess I sort of look at it a little bit differently. I don't get as concerned about the fact that it might reduce the overall need to try to detect AFib. I think there's ultimately just the opposite argument in terms of if it results in the benefits that it does, and it's increasing longevity of life, are we now introducing, because of that longevity, greater incidences of AFib? The other thing, too, is, you know, the majority of the arrhythmias that we identify are not AFib, right? It's SVT, it's atrial tachycardia, it's bradycardia.
These are all sort of things that come out of palpitations that there's an argument maybe you should be monitoring more in this GLP-1 population. So I think there's a lot to be learned yet as we go down this pathway. I don't get concerned about it. I think ultimately, monitoring is just gonna be fine through all of it, if not, see a tailwind down the, you know, down the path at some point as a result of the longevity of life that potentially could be created. I don't know if you have a different point of view.
Great. One minute or so left. Final question from me. You know, what's something that's, you know, commonly ignored by investors that you think is important for the iRhythm story?
I come back to the market. You know, I was with the team yesterday, and we were talking about what has us most excited, and the one theme that continues to come back from that entire commercial force is the way the product's being seen in the marketplace. I'm convinced, and I tell our team all the time, "We gotta think bigger, we gotta move faster, we gotta get ahead of the demand that's gonna be coming," because I don't see the market as 5 million-6 million ACM tests. I really believe this is gonna move up in the primary care pathway. We're seeing it in our results on a daily basis, and as it does, the population that we can address is not 5 million or 6 million.
It's 15+ million folks who have cardiac-specific palpitations that ought to be having a monitor placed on them. I think, and I hope, that as we get further into this, we're gonna talk more and more about the movement into primary care and what that means, and then as you get further up into that care pathway, and you're at that call point of that primary care physician, with the platform that we have and the, the simplicity that we've created, I think there are so many other things we can do there to create value from that I just... I think the future of iRhythm is, is very different than what it was originally set out to do, which is terrific. It's gonna be fun. It's gonna be exciting.
But I think we're just on the tipping point of opening up that primary care space, so I hope we're talking a lot more about that, you know, as we get further into the future.
Great. Well, with that, I think we're out of time. Quentin, Dan, thank you so much.
Thanks for having us. Appreciate it.